Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YqndE-00030m-6R for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 19:08:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YqndD-0005JY-Jd for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 19:08:19 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqncw-0004tD-H7 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 19:08:02 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqnct-000460-2i for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 19:08:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t48J7c04018692; Fri, 8 May 2015 15:07:38 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Andres Freund , Heikki Linnakangas , Jeff Janes , Stephen Frost , Dean Rasheed , Bruce Momjian , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 In-reply-to: References: <20150508150340.GJ12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <9096.1431102730@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20150508165246.GO12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <10633.1431105922@sss.pgh.pa.us> <554CF44B.3080808@iki.fi> <20150508180636.GR12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <20150508181445.GS12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <17473.1431109846@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20150508183504.GU12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <18313.1431111562@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Fri, 08 May 2015 12:00:35 -0700" Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 15:07:38 -0400 Message-ID: <18691.1431112058@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Ooops. But shouldn't that have failed 100% of the time in a CCA build? >> Or is the candidates list fairly noncritical? > The candidates list is absolutely critical. Oh, I was confusing CCA with RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE, which does something a bit different. I wonder whether we should get rid of that symbol and just drive the test in RelationClose off CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. (Ditto for CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE.) Or maybe make CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS #define the other two symbols. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers